The debate "Conservatives have a more math/logical intelligence while liberals are more english" was started by
October 22, 2015, 9:50 pm.
16 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 27 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
bigB posted 1 argument, AstroSpace posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 23 arguments, historybuff posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
stevenchen, ylmzemrah, WaspToxin, KicknRush, AstroSpace, sdiop, barman, lets_hear_your_argument, AGustafson and 7 visitors agree.
PsychDave, wmd, shb_1995, historybuff, Skeetc15, juliette_os, ThePraxeologist, omactivate, Yuki_Amayane, Nethersquid, Bodaciouslady16, erikD9921, roshni, bigB, AngryBlogger, ReadyToBegin, Cato, YMayy, Pablerasdh, SalonY and 7 visitors disagree.
Clinton had the same idea with the million dallor tax plain but his administration found out that many people in the US do not make that much money, so he brought it down to 500,000 and still not that many people made that much money, he brought it down to 250,000 and the people who made 250,000 were taxed as though they made a million dollars. That doesn't seem fair to me. In turn many of those people were forced to give more in order for a tax write off.
Alright I do not like doing this but I'll use myself as an example. This past year I paid 36% in tax on the federal and state level, even though I only made a little over 24,000 last year. I pay my own bills and pay my own way in college. A 15% flat tax would greatly benefit me. We tax the rich more but in turn the rich give more back in tax write offs. The rich can afford to give because they have the money. Carsons plain would negate tax write offs for the rich and have everybody pay the same.
I think that some people would benefit, and many would suffer. Businesses do not automatically hire more people when they make more money. When businesses make more money, they have bigger profits to pass on to their shareholders. Small businesses generate more job growth than large ones, but if you are increasing taxes on the lower and middle class you will see fewer small businesses started.
What a flat tax advocates is taking a proportionally larger amount of taxes from those with lower income than we currently do, and proportionally less from those with the highest incomes. I can see why this would be attractive to millionaires, but for everyone making less, who may be living paycheck to paycheck, it would be terrible.
To pair that with stripping social programs that the lower income families make use of is to take twice as many resources away from them. Again, the wealthy won't notice if social programs that they have no need for stop being funded, but those who depend on them will be ruined.
Which programs do you think we don't need? You have already said planned parenting, which I can agree is unnecessary if everything they provide is provided through Healthcare and religious groups stop attacking abortion law. Where else would you cut to make up for the billions that millionaires get to keep?
What!? That's a joke. I didn't say to get rid of all of them. Not only do we have almost 100 major government agencies but we also have 650 sub agencies. You don't think diverting some of that money and taking away some of the social programs we don't need. That combined with what I said early about businesses and increasing the work force, how will all that not help. You honestly think that it wouldn't work?
If you suddenly tax low income families at 15%, and remove those pesky social programs like food stamps, how exactly do you expect them to survive?
The rich will pay less in taxes, so the federal budget will be increasingly coming from the pockets if those who have less. How do you justify those who make the most suddenly getting more while stripping those with the least of everything?
Woah woah, what? Address what? I've answered your questions
Again failing to address the people whose finances are not strong enough to take the hit. Are you going to address that or continue avoiding it?
On further research I overstated how much they paid him, but the rest of the comment stands. If we assume the $42,000 he was paid for the last speech was the same as his previous speeches, he only receive $168,000 for endorsing their products as having cured his cancer.
No it doesn't. If you put it at a flat tax businesses will grow and hire more employees, thus more people will have money to spend. More people paying into the system increases overall yield. Then take away the majority of the pointless social programs will lead to more money and paying for things that is more beneficial to everybody
He was paid millions, appeared in their videos to endorse the product, claimed it cured his cancer an his picture appeared on their website. That sure sounds like endorsement to me.
I didn't say it was the #1 threat, but would you trust a president who didn't believe nuclear bombs were real? He is denying all evidence because a) he doesn't understand it or b) it is inconvenient to him. Either way he is deciding, either by design or through ignorance, to leave an even bigger mess for the next generation to clean up rather than admit that something could be done now.
So how does that not cripple low-income families? If he lost 15%of his income, he is still making millions. If a family that is barely scraping by suddenly lost 15% they will be on the street and starving. A flat tax helps the rich at the expense of the poor.
He was paid to speak a couple of times for them, just like many other people are paid to speak at certain functions (i.e. Hillary Clinton; on a side note, she made 20 million last year and is a proponent of income equality, kinda strang. Also all the Democrats running for office have a combined net worth of 100 million dollars; doesn't sound like income equality to me)
First he didn't endorse it, that is a fallacy. He even denounced it.
Climate change is not the #1 threat to the US, even though the Obama administration has said it was many times, that's an irrational thought
The flat tax will work, if it's above 10%. Which he did say it would be more likely at 15% or so. It will work if you take away some of the ridiculous welfare programs we have (i.e. Planned Parenthood, if you actually look into it you would find that everything in that program is already covered by ObamaCare, so why do we need that extra program?) . This is one example, their are many more like it.
Look at the rest of the developed world and explain to me how crazy the social programs the liberals want to introduce are. The USA has the least social programs of any developed nation to my knowledge, and fight tooth and nail to prevent them.
Medical systems seem to follow one of two paths. Most nations try to offer medical care so that people can receive treatment before the condition is serious, saving money in the long run. The US system makes it so expensive to get treatment that people will not get help unless they are very sick. Having a baby costs thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, just in medical bills.
He is certainly more logical and intelligent than Trump, but there are still irrational and outright foolish things he has said and done.
He endorsed a dietary supplement and credited it for curing cancer (the company has lost a lawsuit for deceptive marketing for claiming it cured cancer and autism in 2009) and continued to represent them into 2014. Being the face of a company selling snake oil doesn't speak well for him.
He has dismissed climate change in the face of consensus among all scientists. This is both illogical and dangerous to the continued wellbeing of the nation.
He advocates a flat tax which would cripple low income families while significantly benefitting those making millions, like him. This is not so much illogical as simply a demonstration of poor foresight as destroying the finances of a substantial portion of the voters is unlikely to make him popular in the long term.
Other than those few points, he is far more logical and rational than most of the consequences I have met, and more so than any of the other candidates I have looked into. I recognize that you may disagree with my assessment of his ideas, and you are certainly entitled to.
my point is that it seems illogical to want more social programs and saying that we need to give more, which is an emotional thought
I honestly believe Liberals do think more emotionally. Majority of the Liberal side want more social programs; I understand their point of view and helping out the one's who need it, but how can we (the tax payers) keep paying for this stuff when don't have the money. The majority of the "rich" population pay for everything, but Liberals want them to pay more. You are forcing the rich to pay more out of their pocket, thus they look for alternatives; therefore they take jobs overseas and hire illegal immigrants in the US as well. In turn hiring someone else at a 1/3 of the salary in order to maintain their luxurious lifestyle. In my opinion, if the country was more business friendly the businesses would hire more US citizens, adding to the work force and thus increasing the overall GDP.
I disagree bud, Dr. Ben Carson has surpassed Trump in the polls. Therefore, by y'alls definition; Carson is the face of the Conservatives. His points of view mostly align with my points of view. He seems to be the most logical choice in the next election cycle. Better than Trump, Sanders Hillary or Bush. Hillary and Bush are the same; Sanders and Trump are both crazy and extreme in their own regards.
I have found the opposite. Donald Trump is the extreme example, but he seems to reflect a lot of conservatives. He says off the cuff comments that are often racist or sexist or criticizes people without really thinking through what he is saying or how it will be perceived. Most conservatives are not as bad, but many act similarly.
what I've noticed is that conservatives are very logical and think things through, liberals are more spontaneous and emotional
I'm not for isolation. one of the only this I agree with trump on is "we can have a big beautiful gate in the fence" do you know what a social worker is? the most needed jobs in america are farm workers. those jobs are easy to get, but unwanted. illegal immigrants should get these jobs because 1. it is a job that helps the us and 2. it's a whole lot better then being deported.
Explain how criminals and drug dealers are not "undesirable"
now if there is a skilled immigrant, who becomes a citizen then they may chose to work for a big company. but I say give the jobs to us citizens, and the unwanted jobs to illegal immigrants. Once the immigrant becomes a citizen they will have full rights, and should be treated like any other citizen.
Those words sound good, but when has that ever been an accurate portrayal of how things actually work? "Undesirable" people is always redefined based on who is making the definition and it is almost never unbiased.
Furthermore, how do you intend to keep those immigrants "hardworking"? The only leverage you could have is if you threatened to deport them and revoke their citizenship if they stop working. The flaw there is that it doesn't account for circumstances beyond their control. Someone immigrates to work for a big company, like Ford, then they lose their job. Would you deport them instantly? If not how long would you let them look for work before disposing of them as being lazy?
You couch your argument with language about protecting the USA from criminals and evil foreigners, but you forget that your ancestors immigrated too. The nation was founded by immigrants and was built on their labor. There are many things that the US is proud of that could not have been accomplished without immigrants, like landing on the moon. Sealing the boarders from new people is the first step to xenophobia and the eventual diminishing of the country. Isolationism has never helped any nation in history, and it would not help now.
also its harder to pass a new, modern day wall, then a fence, in which a pair of wire cutters can cut.
so you want us to take 9 good, and 1 criminal into america? I want to take the 9 good only. and make sure these good immigrants stay good, and hardworking.
you say they are criminals. most of them are hard working people looking for a better life. you are just being racist. blaming an entire race for the crimes of a minority. no matter how you try to restrict people they will keep coming.
any country can send, tired, poor of any race, as long as they will not be criminals, and will work and benefit our country.
should we let criminals in? should we let people who aren't working in? I say no, you say yes, I'm confused to why you want criminals in the us.
also america can not take care of ourselves, how are we supposed to support others?
but only from certain countries? certain races? what happened to give me your tired, poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free? that's what America was founded on. but now you want to change that to keep others out.
I said they can still come in.
here's what rational people hear from that. become racist dicks. become xenophobic and hate outsiders. discriminate against outsiders.
my plan is as follows.
1. built a wall
2. stop all Mexican immigration.
3. give the illegal immigrants a choice
a. become social workers
4. control all immigration, immigrants can still come.
5. undo the born in america = citizen law.
6. enjoy a better contry.
I agree that letting illegal immigrants be a drain on society is a problem, but spending billions building and manning a wall is wasteful and ridiculous. Deporting millions of people will also be obscenely expensive, as will hunting for all of the illegal immigrants. That is why I think some kind of amnesty program that turns them into citizens would work much better because they would then be paying taxes into the system.
I think you are right in the idea of training the immigrants, however it will cost money in the short term but may be more beneficial in the long run. My point is the government can't keep taking money from citizens and giving it away, unless they are willing to pay back into the system; however, as history has shown in the past twenty years they are more likely to become part of the welfare society
When the US devotes more money to services and continuously takes from tax payers how will this country survive?
I've read that article Dave; you're right it's not definitive, I have also read the one done by USC. Both articles are contradictory to each other. I think conservatives think more immediately with the US, and liberals think more globally.
I'm for immigration if it's done legally and they become US citizens and pay taxes. I'm not for illegal immigrants being treated like citizens and not having to pay taxes. We (the United States citizens) do not have the money to keep paying for people to live. The US budget is 75% devoted to welfare programs and will continue to rise. Timothy G. (former secretary of treasury) said in 2009 that by 2019 90% of the federal budget will be taken up by welfare programs
When have I ever said that? At least try to respond to things I've said, not things that happened in your imagination.
What do you do with poor people now? Trump thinks you should make them someone else's problem if that is at all possible. I think you would be better served to start teaching and training people to do jobs that are needed.
As the baby boomers start to retire and have health problems, the demand for care will skyrocket. This demand could at least partially be alleviated by thinking ahead now and training people. The taxes they would then pay would also help fund systems that are inevitably going to be strained as more and more people leave the workforce.
That is one possible way to benefit from immigration. There are others, including low-skilled labor, but since it is very dependent on the area what type of workers are needed, I won't go through that in depth.
is Obama trying to stop them. border patrol hates Obama foe doing nothing. now we do nothing, we let them in. we need to first control the people we have by either making them work or leave, next we build a wall. one of the things I agree with trump on is this "we can have a big beautiful gate to let people in" understand I want to help poor people, but bringing everyone into the us is no good.
Let me ask you this, if you give me a good logical answer I will stop;
what will happen if we let everyone in Mexico, or any other country, who is poor into america, as you have said we need to do?
Back on the actual topic of the debate, there is research showing that liberals brains tend to have an enlarged anterior cingulate cortex (used for detection and judging conflict and error) and conservatives tend to have an enlarged amygdala (used in processing and storing emotional memories). I will let you read the article if you are interested, but this would mean that conservatives react emotionally while liberals react with logic. This is by no means definitive, but since it seemed relevant to the discussion I thought I would pass it along.
People are already walking many miles to cross into the US. Otherwise there would be a strip of Mexico with no one in it to account for the number of people who have already crossed.
If your family was starving, would you try to find a better life for them, or sit and watch them die? If you had to be afraid if the criminals, and also the police, would you want to stay? That is something that some people in Mexico have to deal with and why they see America as a land of hope even with the hatred they get. People have been trying unsuccessfully to keep them out for years. I believe it was you who pointed out that repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different result was insanity. Instead of just fighting to stop people from finding a better life for their family, how about going back to the ideals that used to make America great? Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
people are walking between Syria and Germany. through civil war, armies and police trying to stop them and countless other hurdles. they are still coming by the hundreds of thousands. the only way to stop desperate people looking for a better life is to kill them. unless you're willing to kill them all they will keep coming.
People are not going to walk 100 miles to the coast swim another few miles, and pop up on a beach soaking wet.
we will sense them with radar or simply see them, and normally arest them or turn them around.
How many billions of dollars do you think it is wise to spend on a wall that people can simply swim around at the coast? How much more to man the wall? What are you going to do when people climb it, shoot them?
They have reduced it by a lot. also this new wall be equipped with radar or other new technology.
A simple yes would have been sufficient.
Liberals do not want to just let criminals in so they can spread violence and drugs. They want to give the immigrants who want to contribute to society a chance to do so.
You are right about the definition of insanity so, keeping that in mind, tell me how effective walls have been in the past at dividing countries. The Berlin Wall was impressive, but people still crossed even though they could be shot for doing so. The Great Wall of China is an immense structure, but it didn't really work for stopping the mongols. Can you point out a few examples of national walls that have been effective at stopping people from immigrating?
things are headed down right now with these imigrants, doing nothing I'd like saying "come in, bring your drugs and crime"
we have done nothing about these imigrants, so either 1. liberals want drugs and crime on the us or 2. they are clueless illegals have drugs and only want things to be good for imagrants.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result"
the country is headed down right now and I want to change it. those who don't want to change the things that are not working are insane, or want bad for this country(marxist).
So you are afraid things will change for the worse if you don't keep them out.
Illegal imagrants from Mexico may bring drugs, they also are desperate criminals, they take my money and get our jobs, they do not do good for america. they are also poor and add to poverty levels. personally don't like drugs and crime getting my money.(most illegal immigrants, not all but all are criminals because they are ILLEGAL)
I understand mexico sucks, but that is no reason to ILLEGALLY imigrant. if they want to come over they can LEGALLY aply for a visa, I know that this will dramatically reduce the number of imigrants but america, especially in Arizona, Texas and NM borders will be safer and have less crime. We in america should look after ourselves before letting people ILLEGALLY come in.
Why does the coming in any way impact you?
because they are ILLEGAL. if people come legally that's ok.
Why do you want to prevent new people from coming to the USA?
also if everything is perfect and works then I will want no change
You think my last post is no change.
So you want new rules to prevent anyone new from coming so that nothing changes. That sounds an awful lot like not wanting things to change.
what do we do to illegal immigrants today? not much. I want us to change, to first organize them, let them become non citizen social workers if they want or leave. then build a wall.
the change liberals want is instead of nothing, they want to give my money to these illegals.
on a side note I want the "born in america=citizen" law to be changed.
You want the USA to change to prevent any new people from coming. That sounds a lot like not wanting things to change. You want no one else to get rights or privileges who don't already have them. Again, that is not a change, that is stasis.
I want change. someone please come in and change this country. please. I think there are people on both sides that want no change but most people want change. the problem is what way should the change go. I want change to make things equal do only citizens. liberals want change to make it not equal and let illegals get rights I, a citizen have.
It is not the successful vs those who are not, it is those who like the way the system is vs those who want to change it. Those who are at the top want to stay there, so they govern in such a way as to benefit themselves. Those who see problems in the system and want to try to change it are not necessarily unsuccessful, they just are not happy with the status quo. Those who opposed segregation, slavery, and women being unable to vote all changed the system in positive ways over the objections of those with a vested interest in maintaining the system as it was. Do you think they were wrong to do so or that they were just looking for government handouts?
dr, Carson said he became a conservative because it was more logical. So what your saying is conservatives are the rich successful people, and the liberals are the people recieving money from Obama. who should we the middle class listen to the successful, or the unsuccessful? the middle class, the biggest class, is pretty split.
you might be missing a big part of it. business owners don't necessarily start as conservatives. they become one when they become the upper class. they then have a vested interest in the status quo. so saying business leaders are more logical isn't true. they just prefer things as they are because they are on the top of the system.
I'm all for change as long as it following the constitution. liberals tend to ignore the constitution and do whatever they want. I would say that most people on welfare or recieving minimum wage are liberals.they don't risk a business because they think the goverment should give them money anyway.
just my opinion.
Answer your own questions. What percentages?
I would wager more entrepreneurs are liberal and more established business people are conservative. Liberals tend to embrace change, sometimes even in cases when they shouldn't. Conservatives tend to fight change, sometimes even when they shouldn't. Entrepreneurs are making changes and trying to change the world to make their mark on it and make money. Established businessmen are generally trying to keep things the way they are because that is how they profit. Both are businessmen.
OK well research it all you want. Conservatism is more inclined toward business owners. How many people in the arts define themselves to be Liberal compared to Conservatism? How many people in the business world define themselves to be Conservative to Liberalism?
Again, that is based on your word about your experience, not any actual evidence. I don't mean that offensively, but if that is correct someone must have researched it.
Umm... he's got a point. No offense but many Liberals I've come across are more inclined to study the arts, theatrical, and philosophical ideas. More business owners (big and small) think more conservatively
Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?